"The populist, a believer in the ability of people to
handle their own affairs better than an elite, will tend to believe in
present equality. The elitist, with his optimism about the superior
ability of elites to handle people's affairs, will tend to believe in
future equality." --Jeffrey Bell

Our nation's founding was predicated on the self-evident
truth that all humans are created equal, and equally endowed with
rights from our Creator. Still, for nearly a century, our country
permitted one class of persons to own another, with slavery based on
skin color. Even today, we allow grown humans to make life-and-death
decisions for unborn humans. Indeed, as we noted earlier this week, a
Supreme Court majority in 1992 declared that no one may assert claims
of equal rights on behalf of unborn citizens: "Some of us as
individuals find abortion offensive to our most basic principles or
morality, but that cannot control our decision. Our obligation is to
define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." The
Justices' decision, of course, mandated their "own moral code" as
binding (and therefore superior) to any different understanding of
equal liberty for all.

What, then, do we mean by equality? Is it only a promise
-- or is it a practice? And on what legitimate basis can anyone assert
a decision-making capacity superior to other citizens' capabilities, if
we are all truly equal?

We human beings are each unique, each differing in
knowledge, skills, and experience. But it is illuminating to consider
how very successful people, elites among us, lay claim to making
decisions on behalf of the rest of us, and to consider the precise
nature of the decisions they would undertake for our good. They believe
they know so much better than we do what is best for us.

One of the most notable exemplars of such elitist
thought is Ted Turner. "People who think like us may be in the
minority, but we're the smart ones. ... [The Ten Commandments] are a
little out of date. If you're only going to have 10 rules, I don't know
if [prohibiting] adultery should be one of them," Turner said last
month. So, Mr. Turner claims to know better than even God what our
moral code should be.

He continued with more insults. Evidently, as is typical
of liberal elitists, Mr. Turner believes anyone who disagrees with him
must be stupid. "Ever seen a Polish mine detector?" inquired Turner,
pointing to his foot. "[The Pope] should get with it. Welcome to the
20th century." After Catholics complained, Mr. Turner apologized for
his attack on the Pope. After the Polish government complained, Mr.
Turner apologized to Poland. It is unlikely he will apologize to Jews,
Christians and families for his other comments.

And this is not the first time Turner has uttered such
words. At a recent environmentalist meeting in Chattanooga, Tennessee,
he said that not only is Christianity "not an environmentally friendly
religion," but Christians themselves are "dummies." Moreover, the smart
people of the world should get all the dumb Christians "to come along
with us," in his view.

As Jeffrey Bell discussed in this 1992 book "Populism
and Elitism: Politics in the Age of Equality," elites in society are
prone to view their success and renown, in whatever field earned, as
merits that qualify them to make decisions for other people. But
Turner's bare assertion that he is smart, while those who disagree are
stupid, is remarkable in its arrogance. Celebrity elites usually know
better than to demean such a large portion of their audience.

Turner's media fortune has derived from appealing to
tastes of the majority in American popular culture. If he counts
himself among the minority of "smart ones," he has clearly gotten his
gelt by pandering to mostly "dummies." Has his life's work been
unjustifiable and irresponsible, then? And exactly how does that make
him a "smart one"?

From the largest issues, a universal moral code and
world environmental policies, to the most intimate, personal matters of
individual family size, the Turneresque elitist vision for creating a
new covenant is complete: At the UN population summit, Turner advocated
draconian government policies to limit families, saying, "We could do
it in a very humane way if everybody adopted a one-child policy for 100
years." Mrs. Turner, Jane Fonda, chimed in, "Anybody who tries to block
family planning doesn't see the writing on the wall."

And what do the liberal elites envision for the best
system to govern us? "To say that we want only non-professionals
governing us is to show a basic disrespect for government, and though
that sentiment may be popular, it is dangerous. We have nothing binding
us together as a nation -- no common ethnicity, history, religion, or
even language -- except the Constitution and the institutions it
created," opined Cokie Roberts. Well, how are we a real nation, then?
Only because of the professional elites in government, who balance the
competing demands of a clamoring cacophony of citizens?

And certainly, we must be convinced that elites can best
manage our economic affairs as well. Bill Clinton's pastor and
spiritual adviser, J. Philip Wogaman of Foundry Methodist Church,
provided an "ethical" analysis of the major economic debate of the 20th
century: "Marxism can speak to the conscience of Christians precisely
because it expresses some basic human values which are very close to
Christian ones. ... Christians cannot find anything to quarrel with
directly [over] the Marxist idea of the human spirit [because Marxism
is] concerned, both morally and economically, with the creative
possibilities of every human member of the community, and, in this
sense, respects the value of each person. ... How could Christians
support any other economic ideology?" Marxism, an entirely
materialistic philosophy of governance through central planning, in
which the value of each person is calculated as property of the state,
with no spiritual dimension whatsoever -- this is close to Christian
values, especially that one about the human spirit being created in the
image of God?

The new covenant liberal elitists have in mind a simple
exchange. They say, Give us power, and we will make you equal. Let us
rule your lives, and we will give you peace with your neighbors and
harmony with nature. We will remake man in our own image. And all this
will be done ... tomorrow.